> As for encrypting the fuseaction, the question is why not?
> Users can start throwing errors by trying different
> fuseaction calls. Which in turn could expose too much info
> if you dont have a site wide error handler. The topic of
> this thread is securing cf apps. Although it may not be
> 100% necessary, it sure doesn't hurt. (minimal processing
> increase aside)
I would argue that attempting to obfuscate URLs may cause more harm than
good. Users can start throwing errors by trying anything within a URL,
whether you encrypt URL data or not. In addition, this adds a layer of
complexity to your environment that may make it more difficult for
administrators and developers to know what's going on. Finally, this may
make your code itself more fragile, and more likely to generate errors.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Tom Kitta
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Steve Nelson
- Re: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Adrocknaphobia
- RE: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Steve Nelson
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Heald, Tim
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Kwang Suh
- RE: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Dave Watts
- Re: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Bryan Stevenson
- RE: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Tom Kitta
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Jochem van Dieten
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Dave Watts
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Burns, John D
- OT: IIS Virtual Directory brobborb
- Re: OT: IIS Virtual Directory Jochem van Dieten
- Re: Securing CF Apps. Adrocknaphobia
- web application vs. web site was Re: Securing CF Ap... Conan Saunders
- RE: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Dave Carabetta
- RE: RE: RE: Securing CF Apps. Tom Kitta
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Dave Watts
- RE: Securing CF Apps. Dave Watts
- Stripping Alphas brobborb